Which is plain wrong, since I have 5 files to produce RDoc from.
Now, if I remove the --title option, RDoc does it's job no problem.
As you probably deduced I'm on Windows.
Ruby says
ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25) [i386-mswin32]
Any hints as to what goes wrong?
Cheers,
V.-
This could be fixed in rake. I posted a solution once.
Some options for you:
* Replace the Rake::RDocTask with:
task "rdoc" do
require 'rdoc/rdoc'
# give the same arguments as to rdoc from commandline
# try "rdoc --help"
RDoc::RDoc.new.document(%w(--title rrt_ruby -T html .....))
end
(The problem with invoking rdoc from the commandline on
Windows is, that a batch file is the start script which
takes only 8 (or something like that) arguments.)
Which is plain wrong, since I have 5 files to produce RDoc from.
Now, if I remove the --title option, RDoc does it's job no problem.
As you probably deduced I'm on Windows.
Ruby says
ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25) [i386-mswin32]
Any hints as to what goes wrong?
Cheers,
V.-
Which is plain wrong, since I have 5 files to produce RDoc from. Now, if I remove the --title option, RDoc does it's job no problem.
As you probably deduced I'm on Windows. Ruby says ruby 1.8.2
(2004-12-25) [i386-mswin32] Any hints as to what goes wrong? Cheers, V.-
This could be fixed in rake. I posted a solution once. Some options
for you:
* Replace the Rake::RDocTask with:
task "rdoc" do require 'rdoc/rdoc' # give the same arguments as to
rdoc from commandline # try "rdoc --help" RDoc::RDoc.new.document(%w(--title rrt_ruby -T html .....)) end
(The problem with invoking rdoc from the commandline on Windows is,
that a batch file is the start script which takes only 8 (or
something like that) arguments.)
Oooops, I should have counted (it's that having 5 files you don't count the --options ). I can always do some pasta code that counts the arguments and loops so that the batch file is always called right.
What I find wierd is that RDocTask is using the batchfile in rake and not the RDoc class.
Fixing it should be easier than doing spaghetti.
Stefan you've done a great job, but purely through momentum I find it myself easier to write an RDoc task for Rake than a Gem Task for Rant (objectively it's the same effort - as I said, it's only momentum)
Cheers,
V.-
Stefan you've done a great job, but purely through momentum I find
it myself easier to write an RDoc task for Rake than a Gem Task for
Rant (objectively it's the same effort - as I said, it's only
momentum) Cheers,
V.-
Stefan you've done a great job, but purely through momentum I find
it myself easier to write an RDoc task for Rake than a Gem Task for
Rant (objectively it's the same effort - as I said, it's only
momentum) Cheers,
V.-
Rant creates zip/tgz/gem packages on Linux, MacOS X, Windows
(and probably most other systems where ruby runs).
Nope I hadn't, but at the rate I am reading these days something will happen to me (there's smoke coming out of my ears I think ).
Will do. At the moment I have a different problem with Rake which I would also like to test with Rant:
task A depends on task B
task B runs and changes (i.e. adds C and D) the prerequisites of task A.
Do tasks C and D run? With Rake they don't (well I say they don't, Jim might have a different opinion).
I'm probably going to test it with rant, but I think this merrits a differnet thread
Cheers,
V.-
···
On Wednesday 05 October 2005 10:13, Damphyr wrote:
Nope I hadn't, but at the rate I am reading these days something
will happen to me (there's smoke coming out of my ears I think
). Will do. At the moment I have a different problem with Rake
which I would also like to test with Rant:
task A depends on task B
task B runs and changes (i.e. adds C and D) the prerequisites of
task A. Do tasks C and D run? With Rake they don't (well I say they
don't, Jim might have a different opinion).
I'm probably going to test it with rant, but I think this merrits a
differnet thread
Cheers,
V.-
If I understand correctly, Rant does what you want:
task :A => :B, &@print
task :B do |t|
enhance :A => [:C, :D] @print[t]
end
task :C, &@print
task :D, &@print
$ rant A
B
C
D
A
A somewhat equivalent Rakefile could look like:
$ cat Rakefile @print = lambda { |t| puts t.name }
task :A => :B, &@print
task :B do |t|
file :A => [:C, :D] @print[t]
end
task :C, &@print
task :D, &@print
$ rake A
(in /home/stefan/tmp/rant-dyn-dep.t)
B
A
Kind regards,
Stefan
···
On Wednesday 05 October 2005 17:54, Damphyr wrote:
Nope I hadn't, but at the rate I am reading these days something
will happen to me (there's smoke coming out of my ears I think
). Will do. At the moment I have a different problem with Rake
which I would also like to test with Rant:
task A depends on task B
task B runs and changes (i.e. adds C and D) the prerequisites of
task A. Do tasks C and D run? With Rake they don't (well I say they
don't, Jim might have a different opinion).
I'm probably going to test it with rant, but I think this merrits a
differnet thread
Cheers,
V.-
If I understand correctly, Rant does what you want:
task :A => :B, &@print
task :B do |t|
enhance :A => [:C, :D] @print[t]
end
task :C, &@print
task :D, &@print
$ rant A
B
C
D
A
A somewhat equivalent Rakefile could look like:
$ cat Rakefile @print = lambda { |t| puts t.name }
task :A => :B, &@print
task :B do |t|
file :A => [:C, :D] @print[t]
end
task :C, &@print
task :D, &@print
$ rake A
(in /home/stefan/tmp/rant-dyn-dep.t)
B
A
Yeap, that's it. Hehe, so nice to just describe a problem and have it solved.
Thanks for sparing me the tryout.
I guess I'll have to find the time to make conversions (unless Jim fixes the above - another case of Unverschämtheit)
Cheers,
V.-
···
On Wednesday 05 October 2005 17:54, Damphyr wrote:
____________________________________________________________________ http://www.freemail.gr - äùñåÜí õðçñåóßá çëåêôñïíéêïý ôá÷õäñïìåßïõ. http://www.freemail.gr - free email service for the Greek-speaking.
). I can always do some pasta code that counts the arguments and loops so that the batch file is always called right.